You have it correct. What you don't quite get is the "result" is called that even before it is sent to a cruncher's computer. At that point the state of the result is "ready to send" When it comes back the state gets changed, completed, error, time out, etc. When the wingman's result comes back the validator is notified and changes the state(s) again or it creates another result to be sent if inconclusive.

In most English speaking countries a "result" is indeed what comes after something. At Berkeley a result in a duplicate of a work unit, and it is called a result before it is sent, while it is out in the field, and after it comes home.

So who do you want to alienate? A lot of small crunchers and let the large crunchers hog the bandwidth/time slots, or a few big crunchers by letting everybody have an equal chunk of bandwidth/time slots.

Edited (note to self, don't forget to proof read before posting)

I suppose you are talking to me? I didn't know I had implied alienating anyone. I think the time and bandwidth would be best served by equal bandwidth and time more than letting one 'class' dominate the connections.

Well, you or anyone else with a "fix" for a finite resource, bandwidth.
You had said" ...the number of users fighting over spots makes it more of less a dog fight for the first position that opens up." I agree.

I think this is going to be true at any percentage of bandwidth or practical amount of bandwidth and judging from previous posts any limit artificially imposed by the S@H staff is going to alienate somebody.

So, does the staff lean towards the big crunchers (more efficient use of band width/less overhead with fewer connections doing larger downloads) or the smaller crunchers (everybody gets a little bit but with less efficient use of
bandwidth), or just let the dogfight continue?

"I think the time and bandwidth would be best served by equal bandwidth and time more than letting one 'class' dominate the connections." BeNt

This favors the "small" cruncher over the "large cruncher", but there are people that could say I'm on the little end of the large crunchers. We haven't defined which is which yet. Now, I consider myself a small cruncher, but any fix the staff comes up with is OK with me because the project is more important than the individual cruncher.

That said, logically I'd go for the large cruncher resolution; best return on resources for the project.

In most English speaking countries a "result" is indeed what comes after something. At Berkeley a result in a duplicate of a work unit, and it is called a result before it is sent, while it is out in the field, and after it comes home.

[sarcasm=on]
So a "result" is a outcome of the work of splitter process - raw chunks of telescope data?? - not even assigned to particular machine/user ?? - ufff what a mind job...

OK - I need to consult some geographer and linguist specialist, because I thought that Berkeley is in the US, and US is a English speaking country (vast majority)
[sarcasm=off]

Thanks guys for so swift replies.

Cheers

Profi

p.s. I understand of course result state - a "ready to send" state of the "result" is not very intuitive (at least for me)- however it may be caused by DB data flow or sth like that...
____________